Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"simple and ridiculous" dragon vs Mx test..

Status
Not open for further replies.
857890_10152160153110126_1876563725_o.jpg


1:1 crop of the colorchart

Again in no way a controlled test, but a good indication of the different "feel" of the two cameras.
 
This example from Luigi illustrates a lot of the saturation and DR and color-renderition differences + "fattness" of the images I see.

I think the Epic is an excellent camera, but to look at the differences, you have to push the boundaries. And that is where they pop out.

In lowexposes: DR, colors, saturation, cleanness in the color-renderition and skin caracter.
If "noise" is not too different if you look at noise only, the image is definitely very different.

In the high end: Color-cleanness and DR.

Again not a controlled test, but it illustrates very well what I see, and "feel", it is a very informative one... :)

I guess I could bring the Epic close to the Dragon with noise reduction, DRX and secondaries, and of course neither of the cams would be shot exactly like that for a practical exposure. ND 0.9 SEH come to mind to get a "good" exposure out of both.
Add a reflector, get crazy-cool skintones out of both and save all that post crap and "recovery" of underexposed skin. which does not really work... Just sayin'... because sometimes it seems people forget that we actually decide how to expose an image. The cam just captures what we give it. Even for an available light shot... :)

But the difference in potential "out of the box" is pretty huge.
 
i downloaded and played in redciinex.
in almost every iso, difference is very obvious not only in DR and grain but especially in color information. While dragon keeps the color information very stable in every ISO, epic is becoming desaturated very quickly. (just look at the skin tones in every iso)
i think this is the first time i really see the difference that may cost me 10k :)
 
Ergin Ozturk said:
i downloaded and played in redciinex.
in almost every iso, difference is very obvious not only in DR and grain but especially in color information. While dragon keeps the color information very stable in every ISO, epic is becoming desaturated very quickly. (just look at the skin tones in every iso)
i think this is the first time i really see the difference that may cost me 10k :)
Click to expand...

I think that you put your finger on everything that makes it "more" fun.
 
Now...

Now...

Ergin Ozturk said:
i think this is the first time i really see the difference that may cost me 10k :)
Click to expand...

You may put it the other way round : first time I can see the difference I'm not ready to pay 10K for. I'm kidding... The question was : how much better is the Dragon, and where exactly. As for myself, I don't know yet for sure what to think : I am teased...Dragon is way better in many aspects. Strikingly better. No way to undermine the overall achievement. Yet, it still does look a tad behind as far as noise and low-light capability are concerned. Epic is a tremendous camera, even for wildlife shooting. I really love it. To me, the only drawback is sensitivity... I was not expecting something comparable to C500, but I feel that people in efp/eng or in my own field expected more. It seems that particular market is not a priority to Red, which is understandable. I simply hope that, apart from resolution, red sensors to come will adress that need for better sensitivity, and that Red will keep on improving 5/6K sensors in that respect. Improvement in resolution have been and are tremendous value. But as far as efp/eng is concerned, this is no more a priority. I fear that Arri might be right here.

Anyway, I wish to thank Luigi for providing us with a ridiculous and simple test ! And that detracts in no way from the interest of other tests conducted by Gunleik and others. The perspective is different. Gunleik is basically right : decide how you want to expose the sensor, and it will just give you what you deserve. That means controlled environment. Problem is I see no way to make golden eagles and other pets understand they should simply let me decide about it.
 
I def do not do nature photography.
But I would have thought:

More in the top + more in the bottom + good colors through exposure range, was not a bad thing when chasing those golden eagles. :)
(yup. I am an advocate for controlling light. Agreed. I do not allways DO that, however... :) I just do not get surprised by the results when I do not... :) )
 
Denis Buhot said:
You may put it the other way round : first time I can see the difference I'm not ready to pay 10K for. I'm kidding... The question was : how much better is the Dragon, and where exactly. As for myself, I don't know yet for sure what to think : I am teased...Dragon is way better in many aspects. Strikingly better. No way to undermine the overall achievement. Yet, it still does look a tad behind as far as noise and low-light capability are concerned. Epic is a tremendous camera, even for wildlife shooting. I really love it. To me, the only drawback is sensitivity... I was not expecting something comparable to C500, but I feel that people in efp/eng or in my own field expected more. It seems that particular market is not a priority to Red, which is understandable. I simply hope that, apart from resolution, red sensors to come will adress that need for better sensitivity, and that Red will keep on improving 5/6K sensors in that respect. Improvement in resolution have been and are tremendous value. But as far as efp/eng is concerned, this is no more a priority. I fear that Arri might be right here.

Anyway, I wish to thank Luigi for providing us with a ridiculous and simple test ! And that detracts in no way from the interest of other tests conducted by Gunleik and others. The perspective is different. Gunleik is basically right : decide how you want to expose the sensor, and it will just give you what you deserve. That means controlled environment. Problem is I see no way to make golden eagles and other pets understand they should simply let me decide about it.
Click to expand...


Denis Sure , I understand your feeling. But shoot at 2000 iso be already a good level . I only know one person who makes documentaries and uses a c300 , the rest is Red or Sony F5.
Perhaps you are doing a lot of questions and interogativi , and that day that you Dragon for the hands you forget all these thoughts , because that's what happened to me .
Remember that from the point of view of tungsten Dragon is better, this is a quantum leap for me , much more than 2000 ISO, this gives me the opportunity to shoot at night in the city with no problems.
Arri also has its problems , we have reached a level so high with these sensors that now to make a small difference you have to work years. I think Arri know how hard it is to have a lot of dynamic range and low noise at high ISO with very small pixels . We'll see.
In this sector, RED has made ​​a giant leap with DRagon .
Today it rains a lot , if it stops I go for these two shots on the fly ... otherwise you have to wait until tomorrow .
 
I had 2 shots on the fly .. I'm sorry but today it rained all day ..
I hope to be the one you are looking for in the limit ..
I must say that I was not able to expose Epic equal to Dragon, I think this is due to the response of the sensor at different ISO. Gunleik surely give us an answer. Whenever I changed shutter climbed or descended too ... maybe I should just try with the frame rate ....
The only way to reach the nearest was to wait for the light to come down again. The idea was to be about 1 stops under, but difficult with histogram.
Obviously I apologize for the colors, but the colors are different for the change of the ambient light, but nature be done so :)
Believe it difficult to exhibit the same .. Dragon responds differently.
Maybe tomorrow we try again with other tests ...
If you have any suggestions, tips, all welcome.

play..
https://copy.com/yyACED0B1GYt
 
Compare.jpg


Pretty crazy how Dragon holds detail and color on both ends. The MX low end is muddy and loses saturation. Pretty impressed with Dragon.
 
luigivaltulini said:
I had 2 shots on the fly .. I'm sorry but today it rained all day ..
I hope to be the one you are looking for in the limit ..
I must say that I was not able to expose Epic equal to Dragon, I think this is due to the response of the sensor at different ISO. Gunleik surely give us an answer. Whenever I changed shutter climbed or descended too ... maybe I should just try with the frame rate ....
The only way to reach the nearest was to wait for the light to come down again. The idea was to be about 1 stops under, but difficult with histogram.
Obviously I apologize for the colors, but the colors are different for the change of the ambient light, but nature be done so :)
Believe it difficult to exhibit the same .. Dragon responds differently.
Maybe tomorrow we try again with other tests ...
If you have any suggestions, tips, all welcome.

play..
https://copy.com/yyACED0B1GYt
Click to expand...

Hey Luigi,
When you shoot 2000ISO on Dragon, use the same exposure as you do for the 800ISO on MX. That way when you bring down the Dragon footage to 800ISO in Redcine X their exposure should match. Then we will be able to directly compare 2000ISO to 800ISO. RED's statement was 2000ISO is as clean as 800ISO when exposed the same. If you expose the 2000ISO less, you will obviously get more noise than MX at 800ISO, but if you expose them the same, Dragon should have less noise. Does that make sense? I think that's how you would test for that.
 
Matt Ryan said:
Hey Luigi,
When you shoot 2000ISO on Dragon, use the same exposure as you do for the 800ISO on MX. That way when you bring down the Dragon footage to 800ISO in Redcine X their exposure should match. Then we will be able to directly compare 2000ISO to 800ISO. RED's statement was 2000ISO is as clean as 800ISO when exposed the same. If you expose the 2000ISO less, you will obviously get more noise than MX at 800ISO, but if you expose them the same, Dragon should have less noise. Does that make sense? I think that's how you would test for that.
Click to expand...

If you expose them the same, you are not really shooting at 800 and 2000. You're shooting at the same exposure. Exposure for 2000 would have to be 1.5 stops less than for 800. (Or am I missing something?)
 
The easy calc is to check 800 vs 1600.

Then you shoot the Dragon 1 stop under Epic. So you just lift ISO to 1600 and close down the lens 1 stop (to avoid shutternoise.)
That would be 5.6 on the Epic and 8 on the Dragon. T-stops with same lens.

800 - 2000 is a stop and "a bit", so that would be to stop down to 8+ on the Dragon, while shooting at 5.6 on the Epic. Much harder to get a controlled reading for that. So if you could shoot 8, 8+ and 11 on the Dragon, we should have a better point of reference.

Wether you change ISO or not in-camera when you shoot it, does not matter.

Would love to have the MacBeth in the shadowsm the same way you did in the previous shot. THAT was really informative.

THX!

G
 
D Fuller said:
If you expose them the same, you are not really shooting at 800 and 2000. You're shooting at the same exposure. Exposure for 2000 would have to be 1.5 stops less than for 800. (Or am I missing something?)
Click to expand...

It's the same thing as if you shot both at 800ISO with same exposure and pushed Dragon to 2000ISO in post. Same outcome since it's RAW.
 
Matt Ryan said:
It's the same thing as if you shot both at 800ISO with same exposure and pushed Dragon to 2000ISO in post.
Click to expand...

If I understand you right, you are wrong... :)

You could leave the ISO @ "whatever" ISO when you shoot, but you need to physically stop down the Dragon 1stop+ to check what the ISO normalisation does to the image.
 
Also, I think this test would be most interesting if you started off with a "good" Epic exposure at 800, did a reference "equal" on the Dragon, and then stopped down with three exposures (Basically equalling 8 = 1600 ISO, 8+ = 2000ISO and 11 = 3200 ISO)

Then we could compare these scenarios with a "fat" Epic exposure.

This test should also be done in a controlled light situation to be informative...
 
Jacobo Martinez said:
When we talk about new COLOR SCIENCE, are we talking about RED COLOR, or RED GAMMA? or is it BOTH?? I understand that Color science is about reproducing accurate colors. Little confused...:001_unsure:
Click to expand...

Both, but Gamma is just a log to rec709 "curve". The Dragoncolor is the powerful stuff that affects the image reproduction.
 
Jacobo Martinez said:
When we talk about new COLOR SCIENCE, are we talking about RED COLOR, or RED GAMMA? or is it BOTH?? I understand that Color science is about reproducing accurate colors. Little confused...:001_unsure:
Click to expand...

Not trying to out-answer Matt... But methinks it has quite a lot to do with the underlying calibration. At least "too".

But his guess is as good as mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top